Drunk man sleeping in running vehicle not guilty of impaired driving

A recent Ontario court case found a drunk man sleeping in a running car was not guilty of any criminal offences. Shutterstock.

In a recent Ontario case, an impaired man who was found sleeping in a
running vehicle after drinking was found not guilty of any criminal
offences. Why?

The ruling last week in the Ontario Court of Justice, R. v. Toyota,
should help lawyers handling impaired driving offences. The decision
addresses the risk-of-danger element of care and control of a vehicle in
the Criminal Code.

Justice Alan D. Cooper ruled that defendant Ryan Toyota was not
guilty of a crime for falling asleep in a parked vehicle outside a
housing complex in Burlington, Ont. in February 2015, with the engine
running and the exterior lights on. Court heard Toyota was drunk but
planned to stay at a friend’s house, and only slept in the vehicle
because he was locked out of the home.

The ruling focuses on a section of the Criminal Code in which the
presumption of care or control of a vehicle is established. Cooper’s
ruling refers to case law established by the Supreme Court of Canada in R. v. Boudreau “that the risk of danger is an essential element of care and control.”

“In the opinion of this court, the cumulative defence evidence has
satisfied me on a balance of probabilities that Mr. Toyota had no
intention of driving his vehicle home that night. He was sleeping in his
car, with the engine on to get heat, only because his homeowner friend
had passed out and had locked Mr. Toyota out,” said the ruling.

“The clear plan was for the defendant to spend the night inside that
residence so he would not have to drive home. The presumption of care
and control has been rebutted.”

According to the case history outlined in ruling, police arrived at
the housing complex and found Toyota sleeping in the vehicle, in
below-zero temperatures. After the officer opened the carc door and
smelled alcohol within the vehicle, the officer asked Toyota to step
out.

The officer noted Toyota was groggy, and had glassy eyes and slurred
speech. Police arrested Toyota and took him to a police station for
testing.

Cooper indicates in his ruling that the police gave evidence “the car
as parked properly, and there is no evidence that it would be a danger
to anyone by virtue of where it was located.”

“It is necessary to consider whether a realistic risk of danger still
existed because Mr. Toyota, in his inebriated state, might have changed
his mind and driven somewhere, or might have unintentionally set the
vehicle in motion,” said the ruling.

Cooper goes on to say “although the defendant’s blood-alcohol
readings were 160 and 160 milligrams of alcohol in 100 millimetres of
blood, it is my view that once awake, it is very unlikely that he would
have changed his mind and driven home. I also find it unlikely he would
have unintentionally set his vehicle in motion in his intoxicated
condition. To set the car in motion he would have had to put his foot on
a brake, push a button, and pull the gear lever back.”

It’s not the first time cases have emerged on how drunk driving is
defined, or prosecuted, under the Criminal Code. Last month, media
reported that the Royal Newfoundland Constabulary charged a 33-year-old
man with impaired driving and other offences after finding him asleep in
his vehicle.

The Edmonton Sun also reported in 2013 on a case where a woman as
charged for falling asleep in her vehicle after drinking, and expressed
displeasure with Alberta’s impaired driving laws.

He called the approach “Draconian” and said the law “mandates an
immediate three-day impoundment of an offender’s vehicle and three-day
suspension of his or her licence on first offence. No trial, no appeal,
not even a chance to call your lawyer.”

This article originally appeared on Legal Feeds, the blog of Canadian Lawyer and Law Times.